No Single Player offline Mode then?

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Actually there IS a way to pause your present situation, sort of: "Save and Quit to Main Menu."

It saves your ship's current position, removes your ship from play, and takes you offline. When you go back online, whether in open, private or solo, you return to your original position relative to whichever major mass you are near.

The only caveat: nothing else stays the same. Mission countdowns continue in the background, other players and NPCs move on, markets change, planetary positions change. But you are still there. It's better than losing your ship, your credits, your vouchers and exploratory data, and your present position by taking your eye and hand away for 2 minutes.

I doubt it's that simple. In PvP servers measures are required to prevent people from quiting whenever they find themselves in a hopeless fight. Those same measures will probably prevent you from quitting in an emergency when you have something else that you must go and do. Something that would not have been an issue in SP.
 
I myself am gonna stick it out regardless of whatever ends up happening, not gonna ask for a refund. thats what I have decided anyways.
 
If your company goes bankrupt and your creditors gets a court order freezing all your companies assets you will not be able to release anything.

Unless the community have a prior Escrow agreement with Frontier, which in all honesty, is something we should seriously consider.

If Frontier are genuine about wanting people to play if the worst happens, then this should be no problem for them...
 
The DRM-free box set Kickstarter benefit was not presented as an off-line solution:

"Physical DRM-free boxed edition of "Elite: Dangerous" plus all rewards above (please note: the disc in the pack is simply an alternative way to install the game - it will have the same online account code whether installed off disc or downloaded digitally)."

All that means is that you can still use the online functions, IF you wish. Now that has changed to you must use the online account.
 
.........
  1. Devs want to make a game but have no money.
  2. Business planning... Including estimating the number of people you expect to fund the project and amount of money you might lose (£Z) if you drop promised features.
  3. Kickstart the game and tell people all the cool stuff that will be in it (including features you don't know or think will be possible).
  4. Clear £X of Kickstarter funding.
  5. Use the Kickstarter funds to begin development.
  6. Identify what features you might need to drop.
  7. Start selling other things; early access, lifetime passes, paint jobs, ships etc.
  8. Begin receiving additional funds from post-Kickstarter sales. £Y income is generated.
  9. Determine that; (X + Y) - Z = enough money to be financially successful.
  10. Announce the key features that will not be in the final product.
  11. Refund requests that you must by law fulfil.. Ignore/deny any you aren't under legal requirement to fulfil.
  12. Release financially successful game and let the storm blow over.
........

It does look that way, doesn't it...
 
Last edited:
If your company goes bankrupt and your creditors gets a court order freezing all your companies assets you will not be able to release anything.

That's true at face value, but there are ways around it. For instance the server side code (or even all the code for that matter) could be put in escrow in the event of FD having to be wound up. Whether FD want to take the steps to put that kind of protection in place now is another matter.
 
OSX isn't a connection issue, it's a platform choice. Also even if it was a connection issue that wouldn't have made any difference if the promised offline mode was provided.

But you know now from FDs statements that due to technical issues they can not do this now.
 
It makes a world of difference when there are gamers who don't play fair, use cheats, hacks and aimbots. Which there are sure to be.
I should not need to avoid anything.
I should not need to fly into a dark region to get away from anyone who may have unfair advantages because they have no life and resort to aimbots.

If having to put up with griefers and campers picking off pilots with hacks is enriching to your game, more power to you... I'll pass on that and stick to online Solo.

You are missing the point here, the original quote was a person stating they wanted to be the only influence on their special version of the galaxy..Not that players would attack them using "aimbots" etc..IE they want the economy to be unaffected by other invisible players trading the same commodity as them lowering their profits etc.

All the problems you talk about are sorted through playing in the solo mode as you yourself have stated.
 
I saw David tweeting 20 mins ago. They aren't in meeting. There won't be follow up imho.

Well, if there isn't any follow up to this I will personally be very disappointed. I'll still play the game (my connection's fine), but this isn't how you treat people, particularly many of your most loyal customers. The reveal of this info in the newsletter, worded as it was, was pretty disrespectful IMO.

I've been really enjoying the beta (when I've had the chance to play) and hope that the game will be a big success, but I think FD ought to come away from this with a bloody nose and (hopefully) a lesson learnt - Be honest with your customers upfront and early, take their concerns seriously (particularly when you knew offline was important to many) and if you do need to let people down do it in a timely, honourable fashion, not at the last minute in some semi-disguised marketing spin in the middle of a newsletter a few weeks from launch.

As I've said previously - I can understand them dropping the feature if they really had to, but I simply can't understand or support the way they've handled this situation. If they don't make a sincere apology about this (the way they chose to reveal it), I'll not be impressed. Will I still play the game? Yes, I think it'll be a good game, possibly even a fantastic game, but FD can forget about expensive skin purchases or any form of goodwill from my side as it wouldn't feel as though that was what they'd shown us (in this instance at least).

I hope they'll make this right. I want to get behind FD again, but this issue has left a very bad taste in my mouth (and clearly I am not alone). Either 'no further comment' or a hard nosed approach won't cut it for me. This issue wasn't one to try and slip under the radar and hope no one really noticed guys...
 
I think the whole Frontier communication thing has been pretty poor from the off.
It could have been so much better and tbh I hate getting the mushroom treatment* from a developer I deeply care for.
(*kept in the dark and fed bull droppings)
 
How are they acting like jerks? How is it being handled badly? Where did they say that there would be an absolute guarantee of an offline mode on the kickstarter page when pledges were open? Why do you think it's necessary for a company to announce their intention of changing a feature the second they start looking at the pros and cons of it internally rather than dealing with the problem and making an announcement after trying to deal with the issue?

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous

Click on "how will single player work...?

Update! The above is the intended single player experience. However it will be possible to have a single player game without connecting to the galaxy server
There.
 
If you support the "online only" decision, please read this before posting: for many of us, the issue is not internet connection. Sure, that is a deal-breaking problem for some unfortunate folk, but it's not all. What bothers a lot of us is that:

1) We want to be able to play a game that is in no way affected by other players: my money, my spare time, my game, my universe. And, if I choose to, my mods and my rules. Should we ever feel like having a gaming experience that is influenced by other players, it has to be our choice, not FD's.

2) We feel cheated by the way this was handled by FD. We understand that plans can be changed, but a change as massive as this cannot have been decided mere weeks before launch, and worse still, it cannot be just nonchalantly mentioned in a newsletter entry between things like "feature X will be added post-launch" and "we're really happy with the way things are going", as if it were a minor detail that is barely worth mentioning. It isn't a minor detail, and the fact that they are treating it as such makes it even more aggravating, because they couldn't possibly not know that this was going to upset a lot of people.

3) We are rightly worried that the game may change over time, depending on the fluctuating fortunes of FD. Just ask the fans of vanilla WoW what they think of all the changes Blizzard made to the original game.

4) We want to be able to play ED for decades to come, just like we have done with the other Elite games. With an online-only mode, the game's lifespan is intrinsically limited to the servers lifespan: if FD goes bust, so does our game.

5) We want to be able to pause, resume, play at our leisure, without things changing while we're gone. Our reasons are our own and they are as many as there are people complaining in this thread, probably more, but mostly it's due to the fact that we are adults with real life priorities, and we feel the game should be playable and enjoyable not just for the hardcore gamers who can happily play away six to twelve hours a day without a care in the world, but also for those of us who only get to play in short half-hour breaks, or less. This is not an unreasonable request, it is simply the standard for all single player games, and this game has always promised to have a single player mode (or are we going to ditch that too now?).

So, dear "onliners", feel free to criticize those of us who are complaining, feel free to defend FD to the bitter end, but please, in the interest of constructive debating, refrain from posting things like "why do u care its 2014 every1 has internet access lol", because that only covers one objection among many (and rather poorly at that). You want to explain to us how wrong we are? Great! But please address all points that are being raised, don't just tackle one and ignore the others. Thanks.
 
I think the whole Frontier communication thing has been pretty poor from the off.
It could have been so much better and tbh I hate getting the mushroom treatment* from a developer I deeply care for.
(*kept in the dark and fed bull droppings)

Oh dear :S
 
Im still wondering whats going to be in the boxed version of ED that people pledged for...
Just the 14 meg launcher on a DVD ?

"Physical DRM-free boxed edition of "Elite: Dangerous" plus all rewards above (please note: the disc in the pack is simply an alternative way to install the game - it will have the same online account code whether installed off disc or downloaded digitally)."
 
To understand the people that want offline, simply imagine FD announcing "multiplayer will be replaced by solo play only, as the effort to host so many online instances are not really feasible anymore, and it would improve the overall gameplay. Yet, you will benefit from online dynamic environment, as all solo player impacts on AI will reflect on the shared unverse"...

Would you still be happy with FD, if it would affect you?

I'm not necessarily requiring offline mode, but I was looking forward to it as an altenative. So even if I "could" just play online solo or PvE in Groups, I am pretty annoyed by the way FD is simply dropping this feature.

This is my stance too.

It may well be a reality that multiplayer is too much of a resource drain and makes the game unplayable for everyone, there are still serious stability issues now. Just before launch they may have to release solo online only - yet to see a stable version of the game I didn't either lag out for mins at a time or have to use ctrl/alt/del as a regular part of my gaming session.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom